Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Vikram Bakshi VS R. P. Khosla...

Vikram Bakshi VS R. P. Khosla - 2025 6 Supreme 691 : Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) empowers a court to initiate a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient material to justify the initiation of a prosecution against an accused person. This proceeding is of a criminal nature and is governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. It is not a mere administrative or procedural step but a formal criminal proceeding. The inquiry under Section 340 is initiated by the court itself, typically when it finds prima facie evidence against a person, and serves as the basis for commencing criminal proceedings. The court may order an investigation or examination of evidence to assess if there is adequate ground for prosecution. Once the inquiry is concluded and the court finds sufficient material, it may proceed to initiate prosecution by issuing a challan or order for trial. This process is a foundational step in initiating criminal proceedings under the Cr.P.C. and is distinct from appellate or revisional jurisdiction.Checking relevance for Kishorebhai Gandubhai Pethani VS State of Gujarat...

Kishorebhai Gandubhai Pethani VS State of Gujarat - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 899 : Section 340 CrPC provides the procedure for initiating a complaint under Section 195 CrPC, which applies to offences such as forgery, false evidence, or tampering with documents used in judicial proceedings. A court before which an offence under Section 195 CrPC has been committed may itself prefer a complaint for prosecution under Section 340 CrPC. The procedure under Section 340 CrPC is mandatory and governs how such a complaint must be filed. The court may initiate proceedings suo motu if it finds that an offence under Section 195 CrPC has been committed, particularly where documents have been forged or tampered with and subsequently produced in court. This includes cases where forged documents are used in civil, criminal, or revenue proceedings, and the court may take cognizance of the offence and initiate prosecution through a complaint filed under Section 340 CrPC.Checking relevance for Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager VS Hardik Harshadbhai Patel...

Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager VS Hardik Harshadbhai Patel - 2016 8 Supreme 318 : Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 allows a court to initiate proceedings against a person for an offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, but only if the court forms an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so. The court must first form a prima facie satisfaction that an offence has been committed, and then decide whether it is necessary to file a complaint. This decision must be based on whether the conduct affects the administration of justice, not merely the personal injury suffered. The court may conduct a preliminary enquiry or form the opinion without one. If the court decides to proceed, it must file a written complaint, which is then sent to a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. The Magistrate must then deal with the complaint as if it were instituted on a police report, and follow the procedure for trial of a warrant case under Sections 238 to 243 of the CrPC. The process is meticulous and must be followed in full; failure to do so renders the proceedings unsustainable.Checking relevance for State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) VS Pankaj Chaudhary...

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) VS Pankaj Chaudhary - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1103 : Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are initiated when a court, upon an application or otherwise, forms the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make an inquiry into an offence referred to in Clause (b)(i) of Section 195 CrPC, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court. The court may then: (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused or, if the offence is non-bailable and necessary, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. Two preconditions must be satisfied: (i) the materials before the court must make out a prima-facie case for a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and (ii) it must be expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry. The court must be satisfied that there is a prima-facie case and that the inquiry is required in the interests of justice. A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory but may be conducted if deemed necessary. The court may dispense with a preliminary inquiry if it is otherwise in a position to form the opinion that an offence has been committed. However, the filing of a complaint is not mandatory even after forming such an opinion.Checking relevance for STATE OF PUNJAB VS JASBIR SINGH...

STATE OF PUNJAB VS JASBIR SINGH - 2020 2 Supreme 697 : Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides the procedure for initiating proceedings against a person for offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b), particularly those involving forgery or falsification of documents in judicial or revenue proceedings. The process begins when a Court, upon an application or otherwise, forms the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into such an offence. The Court may then conduct a preliminary inquiry, if deemed necessary, and after such inquiry (or without it), record a finding that it is expedient to proceed. Thereafter, the Court must make a written complaint and send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. The Court may also take security for the accused''''s appearance or, if the offence is non-bailable and necessary, send the accused in custody. The accused is not entitled to a hearing before the Court files the complaint, but has the right to be heard before the Magistrate when the complaint is received. The preliminary inquiry is discretionary, not mandatory, and the Court is not required to afford an opportunity to the accused before filing the complaint. The Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, proceeds as if the case were instituted on a police report, and the accused is entitled to be heard at that stage.

• Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. - Compounding an offence under this section results in an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded; it does not benefit or extend to other accused persons involved in the same offence ["Mubasheer, S/o. Abdul Kader VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"].

• Difference Between Compromise and Compounding - A compromise between parties does not equate to compounding of an offence. Compounding involves a formal legal process that can lead to an acquittal, whereas compromise is a private settlement that does not automatically have legal effect on the offence ["Soman E. , S/O. Ariyan VS Faisal K. , S/O. Abdulla Haji - Kerala"].

• Scope of Compounding under Section 320 - Not all offences are compoundable; some, especially those affecting societal interests or involving previous convictions, cannot be compounded without court permission. The process is governed by specific provisions, and the effect of compounding is an acquittal only for the accused with whom it is done ["Soman E. , S/O. Ariyan VS Faisal K. , S/O. Abdulla Haji - Kerala"], ["Johnson Stephen VS Chinchumol - Kerala"].

• Offences under the NI Act - Certain offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), such as those under Section 138, are generally not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, courts can permit compounding through inherent powers or with court approval, especially if there is mutual settlement and no objection from the complainant ["G.Sasidharan, S/o K.R.Gopalan vs Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. - Kerala"], ["A. S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. VS Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court"].

• Inherent Powers of the Court - The High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit compounding even when the offence is not explicitly listed as compoundable under Section 320, provided the parties settle and the court deems it appropriate ["Naseem VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].

• Procedural Conditions for Compounding - If the accused does not initially apply for compounding, subsequent applications before the Magistrate may be entertained, often with conditions such as payment of a percentage of the cheque amount. Consent of victims and the nature of the offence influence whether compounding is permitted ["Balbir Singh vs Mohi Ram - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Hira Lal vs H.P. State Co-operative Bank - Himachal Pradesh"].

• Legal Principles and Limitations - The principles of compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. are designed to facilitate settlement and reduce litigation. However, offences affecting public interest or involving serious consequences cannot be compounded without strict court approval. The process results in an acquittal for the accused involved in the compoundable offence ["In The Matter of Dilip Adhikary VS Basanta Nath - Calcutta"].

Analysis and Conclusion:Compounding an offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. applies strictly to the accused with whom the offence is compounded. It does not automatically benefit or extend to other accused persons involved in the same offence. For offences like those under Section 138 of the NI Act, which are generally non-compoundable, courts may still permit compounding through inherent powers if parties settle and court approval is obtained. Therefore, compounding with one accused does not confer any benefit or legal effect on other accused involved in the same offence unless the offence is fully compounded and the court's permission is granted for all involved parties.